rcm4453 said:
lorenfb said:
rcm4453 said:
Aww does it bother you that I voice my opinion and state facts about FCEVs?
No it doesn't. And right, it's your opinion and
your interpretation of the "facts", which typically occurs
on blogs. For some of us, we view the "facts" differently.
Facts are still facts no matter how they get interpreted. The facts that others and myself have posted on here regarding the shortcomings of FCEVs are what they are. The problem is you and GRA don't want to accept these facts. You guys are so quick to point out the flaws with BEVs though! At least I acknowledge the shortcomings with BEVs why can't you guys do the same with FCEVs?
Speaking for myself, I've stated the shortcomings of FCEVs repeatedly, and have also said what improvements must occur before they can be commercially successful, which I don't expect for at least 5 years, more likely 10, and possibly much longer, if ever. I have also repeatedly stated that nothing guarantees the ultimate success of FCEVs, or BEVs, or any AFV. I have been a supporter of BEVs since the mid-'90s, and have repeatedly stated that they are superior to FCEVs in certain circumstances given current tech, but I'm not blind to their flaws; they too will need improvements in many of the same areas as FCEVs do, primarily price and performance compared to ICEs, to be commercially successful (which is to say, acceptable to the general public, and not needing direct government to customer subsidies to compete against ICEs).
My objection to your points is that you assume that the issues hindering the widespread adoption of BEVs are bound to be corrected, that it will unquestionably happen before the issues hindering FCEVs can be corrected, and that those issues hindering FCEVs that almost certainly can't be corrected (such as lower energy efficiency vs. BEVs) are enough to eliminate them from consideration, while the issues of BEVs that almost certainly can't be corrected (such as longer 'refueling' times) won't eliminate them. None of these assumptions are written in stone; the public gets a vote. It's in the assumptions made from the current facts, and the conclusions we each draw from them as to the most likely future developments and their pace, that lead to differing interpretations.
One last time: I believe that we should simultaneously pursue ANY AFV tech which has a reasonable chance of replacing fossil-fueled ICEs without direct subsidies, and which can do so using sustainably-produced energy; note that it isn't a requirement that they be 100% sustainable at the moment (none of them are in practice, although each of them can be). Right now, the three techs which I see have the potential of meeting the above criteria are BEVs, FCEVs, and ICEs using sustainable biofuels, and I believe we need to proceed with all three, until such time as one or more of them achieves commercial success as defined above, and we can completely replace fossil fuels. If one or more of them fails to achieve success, then we will have wasted some billions of dollars. I think the potential climate consequences of not getting off fossil-fuels are so dire that that level of potential waste is chicken feed in comparison, and will happily accept the cost.
In any case, I've been involved with RE long enough to know that it's extremely situationally dependent, and expect that some/all of these techs may be only partially successful and ultimately restricted to a niche, but that niche will be valuable. I think that's the most likely result for liquid biofuels, as that's almost certainly going to be needed for long-distance aviation, but there are probable limitations on the volume that can be produced that will prohibit its expansion to land/water transport. OTOH, tomorrow someone may invent something that changes that assessment.
In the interim, HEVs and PHEVs are the most cost-effective transition technologies for road vehicles that will give us the greatest reduction in GHGs/$. As it happens, much of the R&D for HEVs/PHEVs/BEVs/FCEVs applies to all of them, so even if one or more of them ultimately fail, a lot of the R&D won't be wasted.
Along that line, from
US DRIVE releases comprehensive cradle-to-grave analysis of light-duty vehicle GHGs, cost of driving and cost of avoided GHGs
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/06/20160609-usdrive.html
. . . Combining vehicle efficiency gains with low-carbon fuels, the GHG reductions generally more than double compared to vehicle gains alone. For example, gasoline ICEVs running on gasoline developed from pyrolysis of forest residues are modeled to have C2G GHG emissions of about 140 g CO2e/mi, while FCEVs running on hydrogen produced from biomass gasification have emissions of about 115 g CO2e/mi. BEVs running on wind electricity and FCEVs running on hydrogen from wind electricity have C2G GHG emissions of about 50 g CO2e/mi or less.
See the chart at http://bioage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef01bb090eb395970d-popup
